Greenhouse Gases Are Real

A certain AGW Denier in here continues to state that there is no such thing as Greenhouse Gases. That person's apparent justification for rejection of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming Theory are related to his misunderstanding of science. His claims are that additional warming of the planet by anything other than the sun constitute the breaking of many laws of physics [which he professes to know a lot about, but apparently can't put what he knows together to draw any kind of rational conclusion]. So in his honor, and probably horror, I present this link, to a scientific [even though he doesn't believe in science] paper that explains that Greenhouse Gases do not break any laws of physics. In fact, it goes on to explain that Greenhouse Gases actually follow the same laws of physics that everyone else does.http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf

Greenman..... Your post of a 20 year old article is excellent. It even includes the phase-change GHG water vapor infra-red energy absorbing feedback to man-made, non-phase-change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs.AGW denier liar whiners have always desired to separate water vapor from man-made GHGs. However, it was well-known decades ago, that water vapor effects are driven by man-made GHGs.
Edited on 30-08-2017 16:19

GreenMan wrote:A certain AGW Denier in here continues to state that there is no such thing as Greenhouse Gases.

There isn't. You can't even define what 'global warming' means.

GreenMan wrote:That person's apparent justification for rejection of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming Theory are related to his misunderstanding of science.

There is no 'global warming theory'. Such a theory is not internally consistent. Not even a non-scientific theory can do that. Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions, links, or quotes.

GreenMan wrote:His claims are that additional warming of the planet by anything other than the sun constitute the breaking of many laws of physics [which he professes to know a lot about, but apparently can't put what he knows together to draw any kind of rational conclusion].

1) You don't know the temperature of the planet.2) I was unaware that 'two' meant 'many'.3) Attempted redefinition of 'rational' as 'religious', attempted redefinition of void as 'conclusion'.

GreenMan wrote:So in his honor, and probably horror, I present this link,

Science is not a Holy Link.

GreenMan wrote:to a scientific [even though he doesn't believe in science] paper

Science is not a paper. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' paper.

GreenMan wrote:that explains that Greenhouse Gases do not break any laws of physics.

It breaks two: The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

GreenMan wrote:In fact, it goes on to explain that Greenhouse Gases actually follow the same laws of physics that everyone else does....deleted Holy Link...Let the fun begin.

No, they don't. They are Holy Gases that you give special properties to. Those properties don't exist.

GreenMan wrote:A certain AGW Denier in here continues to state that there is no such thing as Greenhouse Gases.

There isn't. You can't even define what 'global warming' means.

That is such an idiotic thing to say. Simply use the definition of each of the two words, and you have the meaning of the term. Global = The Whole WorldWarming = It's getting hotter

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:That person's apparent justification for rejection of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming Theory are related to his misunderstanding of science.

There is no 'global warming theory'. Such a theory is not internally consistent. Not even a non-scientific theory can do that. Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions, links, or quotes.

Just defined it. Simply understand the meaning of the words, and you have the meaning of the term.

This is a description of the Global Warming Theory, which you need to read, since you have apparently never heard of it.

Global Warming Theory in a NutshellEvery scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared ("IR") radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth's greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth's natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on "low". The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

You need to take it up with him. You can probably get his email address from your boy Wake Me Up.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:His claims are that additional warming of the planet by anything other than the sun constitute the breaking of many laws of physics [which he professes to know a lot about, but apparently can't put what he knows together to draw any kind of rational conclusion].

1) You don't know the temperature of the planet.

Sure I do, it is 289 Kelvin, or 16C. I know, because unlike you, I bothered to read that scientific paper that explains the Greenhouse Gas Theory. http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdfWell, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything. But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

Into the Night wrote:2) I was unaware that 'two' meant 'many'.

It doesn't, unless you are overwhelmed by just one. Then two becomes, "many."

Into the Night wrote:3) Attempted redefinition of 'rational' as 'religious', attempted redefinition of void as 'conclusion'.

While I agree that rational and religious are two different things, that are even mutually exclusive, I don't see your argument. Are you again trying to put off Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases as "religious arguments?"

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:So in his honor, and probably horror, I present this link,

Science is not a Holy Link.

That is true. Science is a collection of knowledge and understanding of nature. That link lands a person who is interested enough to click it on a very good explanation of Global Warming. It's a little scientific, but not really too hard to understand for a layman.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:to a scientific [even though he doesn't believe in science] paper

Science is not a paper. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' paper.

I think we covered that. Your point is noted. Science is not a paper. I'm not sure why you think that is relevant, since everyone knows it. And everyone also knows that science is presented on paper. That keeps scientists from having to repeat themselves over and over a million times, when they want to explain their understanding.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:that explains that Greenhouse Gases do not break any laws of physics.

It breaks two: The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No, actually, neither of those two laws are broken, as explained here:http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/People are being caught by semantics. Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don't "warm" the planet (as in, they don't supply additional heat energy), but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It's a bit like saying a blanket doesn't warm you in bed. Sure, it's got no internal heat source, and it won't add any heat energy that you didn't already have, but you sure feel cold without one. – Jo

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:In fact, it goes on to explain that Greenhouse Gases actually follow the same laws of physics that everyone else does....deleted Holy Link...Let the fun begin.

No, they don't. They are Holy Gases that you give special properties to. Those properties don't exist.

According to even the Global Warming Denial scientists like Roy Spencer, they exist. It is a proven fact that they exist. There has been a lot of research into Greenhouse Gases, including measuring the difference between earth's IR radiation at ground level versus at the outer edge of the atmosphere. Virtually all of earth's long-wave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.

GreenMan wrote:No, actually, neither of those two laws are broken, as explained here:http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/People are being caught by semantics. Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don't "warm" the planet (as in, they don't supply additional heat energy), but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It's a bit like saying a blanket doesn't warm you in bed. Sure, it's got no internal heat source, and it won't add any heat energy that you didn't already have, but you sure feel cold without one. – Jo

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:In fact, it goes on to explain that Greenhouse Gases actually follow the same laws of physics that everyone else does....deleted Holy Link...Let the fun begin.

No, they don't. They are Holy Gases that you give special properties to. Those properties don't exist.

According to even the Global Warming Denial scientists like Roy Spencer, they exist. It is a proven fact that they exist. There has been a lot of research into Greenhouse Gases, including measuring the difference between earth's IR radiation at ground level versus at the outer edge of the atmosphere. Virtually all of earth's long-wave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.

Let me get you straight - first you portray Dr. Spencer's explanation of the theories of the AGW camp as his and agree with him and then you tell us he's a denier and doesn't know what he's talking about. So what is it? Either you agree with him after purposely misrepresenting his opinions, as one of the world's foremost climate scientists, or you hate him for telling the truth?

And while we're at it exact how do you represent taking someone else's data, graphing that data and then telling us you "modeled the climate"?

And in your copy catting tell us: when the temperature cycled through warm periods was THAT climate change? When the temperature reverted back to it's lower levels was that climate change? Curious parties want to know just what lengths you'll go to to try to convince yourself that you're smarter than the average PhD lead of NASA's weather satellite program.

GreenMan wrote:A certain AGW Denier in here continues to state that there is no such thing as Greenhouse Gases.

There isn't. You can't even define what 'global warming' means.

That is such an idiotic thing to say. Simply use the definition of each of the two words, and you have the meaning of the term. Global = The Whole WorldWarming = It's getting hotter

Circular definition. You can't just say 'global warming' is 'global warming'. You have to use something besides a circular definition or resign yourself to the fact that you are proselytizing a religion.

What makes a theory a part of the body of science, and therefore more than a circular argument, is the test for falsifiability (along with the test of external consistency).

ALL theories must pass the test of internal consistency. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a fallacy, which is an error in formal logic. Like mathematics, formal logic is a closed system, complete with proofs and the power of prediction that stem from such a system.

GreenMan wrote:Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared ("IR") radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth's greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth's natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on "low". The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

So...the 'global warming theory' is the concept of 'global warming'. Circular definition. Not a theory at all, not even a nonscientific one.

GreenMan wrote:Yes, that is copy and pasted. It came from here:...deleted Holy Link...

You have to define it without links or quotes. Using the arguments of others is lazy thinking. It is yet another sign that you are pushing a religion and nothing else.

GreenMan wrote:You need to take it up with him. You can probably get his email address from your boy Wake Me Up.

I don't need to take it up with him. He is not here. I am not going to argue here with something someone said that isn't here.

Present YOUR argument. Don't depend on stealing arguments from others. That is mindless.

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse theory'. This is what the Church of Global Warming calls it's scripture.

GreenMan wrote:Well, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything.

Argument from randU. Quoting more random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

Random numbers is not a 'guestimate'. Guesstimates come out of statistics. You are illiterate about statistical math.

You never answered the question put to you:How many official thermometers are in the world? (It's ok to use a ballpark figure here)

That is true. Science is a collection of knowledge and understanding of nature.

WRONG. Science is a collection of falsifiable theories that describe nature. It is not knowledge. It is not 'understanding'. It is just the theories themselves.

GreenMan wrote:That link lands a person who is interested enough to click it on a very good explanation of Global Warming.

'Global warming' cannot be defined simply as 'global warming'. Stop using circular definitions or admit that you are pushing a religion.

GreenMan wrote:It's a little scientific, but not really too hard to understand for a layman.

'Global warming' is 'global warming' is just a circular definition.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:to a scientific [even though he doesn't believe in science] paper

Science is not a paper. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' paper.

I think we covered that. Your point is noted. Science is not a paper. I'm not sure why you think that is relevant, since everyone knows it.

Then stop trying to use a paper someone wrote as a definition of science.

GreenMan wrote:And everyone also knows that science is presented on paper.

It can be. Paper is but one medium to describe a theory on. The THEORY is the key, not the paper. Don't just make vague claims that a 'scientific paper' says anything useful. There are ton of 'scientific papers' that are not science at all. Any idiot can write a paper.

GreenMan wrote:That keeps scientists from having to repeat themselves over and over a million times, when they want to explain their understanding.

You are trying to justify a medium to me? Or are you trying to justify calling a paper written by some bloke 'science'?

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse theory'. This is what the Church of Global Warming calls it's scripture.

GreenMan wrote:Well, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything.

Argument from randU. Quoting more random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

Random numbers is not a 'guestimate'. Guesstimates come out of statistics. You are illiterate about statistical math.

You never answered the question put to you:How many official thermometers are in the world? (It's ok to use a ballpark figure here)

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse theory'. This is what the Church of Global Warming calls it's scripture.

GreenMan wrote:Well, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything.

Argument from randU. Quoting more random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

Random numbers is not a 'guestimate'. Guesstimates come out of statistics. You are illiterate about statistical math.

You never answered the question put to you:How many official thermometers are in the world? (It's ok to use a ballpark figure here)

In the USA there are 1018. And they are almost all in urban centers.

The question was asked of Greenman and the question was asked about the number of thermometers in the world, not the United States.

NOAA claims they have 1200 stations currently in operation. In addition, there are currently around 900 ASOS stations operating. That is 2100 official thermometers in just those two sets. There are additional sets from the National Weather Service, the Hurricane watch center, and U.S.operated buoys that measure sea and air temperatures.

All of these are government owned and operated. All of these are official thermometers.

There are also thermometers located at intervals along our nations freeways and highways. These are automated stations similar to ASOS. I have no figures on the number of these in operation. They are government owned and operated thermometers, however. They are official thermometers.

The question was asked of Greenman and the question was asked about the number of thermometers in the world, not the United States.

NOAA claims they have 1200 stations currently in operation. In addition, there are currently around 900 ASOS stations operating. That is 2100 official thermometers in just those two sets. There are additional sets from the National Weather Service, the Hurricane watch center, and U.S.operated buoys that measure sea and air temperatures.

All of these are government owned and operated. All of these are official thermometers.

There are also thermometers located at intervals along our nations freeways and highways. These are automated stations similar to ASOS. I have no figures on the number of these in operation. They are government owned and operated thermometers, however. They are official thermometers.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: There are 1221 stations and after surveying 1007 of them it was determined that only 8% of them were reliable.

Temp stations have been verified over & over, including procedures conducted by AGW skeptic Richard Muller.... who is now an AGW advocate. Quoting 5 year old dope from WUWT is a sure way to get dope, proving you are a dope.
Edited on 01-09-2017 03:04

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: There are 1221 stations and after surveying 1007 of them it was determined that only 8% of them were reliable.

Temp stations have been verified over & over, including procedures conducted by AGW skeptic Richard Muller.... who is now an AGW advocate. Quoting 5 year old dope from WUWT is a sure way to get dope, proving you are a dope.

GreenMan wrote:No, actually, neither of those two laws are broken, as explained here:http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/People are being caught by semantics. Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don't "warm" the planet (as in, they don't supply additional heat energy), but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It's a bit like saying a blanket doesn't warm you in bed. Sure, it's got no internal heat source, and it won't add any heat energy that you didn't already have, but you sure feel cold without one. – Jo

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:In fact, it goes on to explain that Greenhouse Gases actually follow the same laws of physics that everyone else does....deleted Holy Link...Let the fun begin.

No, they don't. They are Holy Gases that you give special properties to. Those properties don't exist.

According to even the Global Warming Denial scientists like Roy Spencer, they exist. It is a proven fact that they exist. There has been a lot of research into Greenhouse Gases, including measuring the difference between earth's IR radiation at ground level versus at the outer edge of the atmosphere. Virtually all of earth's long-wave radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere.

Let me get you straight - first you portray Dr. Spencer's explanation of the theories of the AGW camp as his and agree with him and then you tell us he's a denier and doesn't know what he's talking about. So what is it? Either you agree with him after purposely misrepresenting his opinions, as one of the world's foremost climate scientists, or you hate him for telling the truth?

When did Dr. Spencer become one of the "world's foremost climate scientists?" He is just a prominent denier, bought off by the oil industry. I used his explanation for Global Warming, because he is an official skeptic of AGW, though he does acknowledge that it is getting warmer [just not our fault]. And he did a good job of presenting the "official explanation."My disagreement with him is over the cause of Global Warming. He thinks it's the clouds, I think it's the Greenhouse Gases.

Wake wrote:

And while we're at it exact how do you represent taking someone else's data, graphing that data and then telling us you "modeled the climate"?

The model uses someone else's data to backcast the earth's average temperature. It does that by applying a mathematical equation to the data for each 1000 year time period. That calculated value [model output] is then compared on a graph to the temperature recorded in the ice for that period of time.

Data from "others" is not the model.

The mathematical equation I developed is the model.

duh

Wake wrote:

And in your copy catting tell us: when the temperature cycled through warm periods was THAT climate change?

Why yes it was. In fact, if you would get your head out of your ass and study the earth's past climate, you will find that it is always changing. The previous ten thousand years has been a plateau with a slight cooling trend over time. That is very rare. The planet is usually either getting warmer or cooler, and hardly ever stays the same as it has since coming out of the last glacial period.

Wake wrote:When the temperature reverted back to it's lower levels was that climate change?

yupper

Wake wrote:Curious parties want to know just what lengths you'll go to to try to convince yourself that you're smarter than the average PhD lead of NASA's weather satellite program.

I can see that he is your hero, but that doesn't make him right about everything.

Greenman wrote;Why yes it was. In fact, if you would get your head out of your ass and study the earth's past climate, you will find that it is always changing. The previous ten thousand years has been a plateau with a slight cooling trend over time. That is very rare. The planet is usually either getting warmer or cooler, and hardly ever stays the same as it has since coming out of the last glacial period.

OK Greenman, all jabs and insults out the window....for a moment. I know we'll never change your mind, so I'm honestly looking for a clean discussion.

What I want to know is how is it that you came to the conclusion that CO2 is warming the planet. If I look at your model, I see wild swings of natural warming and cooling, and then there is this tiny tiny uptick in temps, nowhere near previous natural warming. Also, what is it, besides what you hear reported on the news, that actually makes you believe that it is actually warming? I have done fairly deep digging in your state of Michigan and can't find any evidence of warming, according to the local records.I admittedly did poorly in school, so I haven't the science to engage in those discussions. What I do have is some knowledge in weather. I also have this experiment that happens every day right outside my door called the weather. When I hear someone tell me climate(average of all weather)is changing, I look outside to see if it's true. The things I'm being told are happening, well, they just aren't in my neck of my woods. What about Michigan? What are YOU seeing as proof positive that Michigan is getting warmer on average. What is it that convinces Greeman beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1. It is Definitely warming...and 2. It is definitely caused by CO2 ...and 3.This is far different than any other natural temp swing in the history of the earth.
Edited on 01-09-2017 06:09

What makes a theory a part of the body of science, and therefore more than a circular argument, is the test for falsifiability (along with the test of external consistency).

ALL theories must pass the test of internal consistency. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a fallacy, which is an error in formal logic. Like mathematics, formal logic is a closed system, complete with proofs and the power of prediction that stem from such a system.

GreenMan wrote:Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared ("IR") radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth's greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth's natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on "low". The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

So...the 'global warming theory' is the concept of 'global warming'. Circular definition. Not a theory at all, not even a nonscientific one.

GreenMan wrote:Yes, that is copy and pasted. It came from here:...deleted Holy Link...

You have to define it without links or quotes. Using the arguments of others is lazy thinking. It is yet another sign that you are pushing a religion and nothing else.

GreenMan wrote:You need to take it up with him. You can probably get his email address from your boy Wake Me Up.

I don't need to take it up with him. He is not here. I am not going to argue here with something someone said that isn't here.

Present YOUR argument. Don't depend on stealing arguments from others. That is mindless.

I have presented MY argument, and it is that you don't know what you are talking about. You just repeat the same old things, over and over, throughout this forum, and try to act like they are your own ideas [which you thinks keeps you from being a Parrot]. Your ideas are new to me, but they aren't to others, because they are debunked. That means that real scientists have heard about them, and took the time to explain why they are fallacies. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/And that means they didn't come from you. So you are a Parrot, and I am the Parrot killer [ifukkayou hehehehehehehehehe].

I think that what happened was, when you thought about what your persona was going to be, that you had to figure out a way to present yourself as someone who had done the time and put in the research, and came up with your own conclusions [much like I have, but you got confused and figured it out wrong]. You couldn't be a Parrot Killer, if you were a Parrot yourself, could you? But now the truth is out. You are a lowly Parrot, just spouting off about things that others have already come up with. Just repeating other people's lies.

And that is a shame, because you do appear to be a very knowledgeable person, capable of helping people understand what is going on. That would help you tremendously with your karma problems, that are getting worse and worse as time goes on. Did you know that you reap what you sow? You are sowing confusion, so you will become confused. Your world will become the product of confusion.

It's not too late to come back to reality. You will find that the challenges ahead of it are worth it, and your talents will be very useful in helping those who want to know what to do. And then your karma will begin to balance out, and your world will slowly become harmonious with the universe. It's all up to you. I can lead a horse to water, but he has to reach down and take a drink himself.

The question was asked of Greenman and the question was asked about the number of thermometers in the world, not the United States.

NOAA claims they have 1200 stations currently in operation. In addition, there are currently around 900 ASOS stations operating. That is 2100 official thermometers in just those two sets. There are additional sets from the National Weather Service, the Hurricane watch center, and U.S.operated buoys that measure sea and air temperatures.

All of these are government owned and operated. All of these are official thermometers.

There are also thermometers located at intervals along our nations freeways and highways. These are automated stations similar to ASOS. I have no figures on the number of these in operation. They are government owned and operated thermometers, however. They are official thermometers.

Now let's let Greenman try to answer the question put to him.

Another dumbazz answer: ...deleted Holy Link...

There are 1221 stations and after surveying 1007 of them it was determined that only 8% of them were reliable.

What makes a theory a part of the body of science, and therefore more than a circular argument, is the test for falsifiability (along with the test of external consistency).

ALL theories must pass the test of internal consistency. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a fallacy, which is an error in formal logic. Like mathematics, formal logic is a closed system, complete with proofs and the power of prediction that stem from such a system.

GreenMan wrote:Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared ("IR") radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth's greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth's natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on "low". The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

So...the 'global warming theory' is the concept of 'global warming'. Circular definition. Not a theory at all, not even a nonscientific one.

GreenMan wrote:Yes, that is copy and pasted. It came from here:...deleted Holy Link...

You have to define it without links or quotes. Using the arguments of others is lazy thinking. It is yet another sign that you are pushing a religion and nothing else.

GreenMan wrote:You need to take it up with him. You can probably get his email address from your boy Wake Me Up.

I don't need to take it up with him. He is not here. I am not going to argue here with something someone said that isn't here.

Present YOUR argument. Don't depend on stealing arguments from others. That is mindless.

I have presented MY argument, and it is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Not an argument. A fallacy known as Bulverism (combined with an argument of the Stone). Fallacies are not arguments.

GreenMan wrote:You just repeat the same old things, over and over, throughout this forum,

You keep making the same mistakes. It comes from the same scripture you quote from the Church of Global Warming.

GreenMan wrote:and try to act like they are your own ideas [which you thinks keeps you from being a Parrot].

I did not create the theories of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

GreenMan wrote:Your ideas are new to me,

That's probably because you deny science.

GreenMan wrote:but they aren't to others, because they are debunked.

Thermodynamics and Planck's work is NOT debunked.

GreenMan wrote:That means that real scientists have heard about them, and took the time to explain why they are fallacies.

Planck IS a real scientist. The laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are real theories that are part of the body of science.

That's right. They came from the authors of those theories. They and ONLY they are the authoritative reference to their theories.

GreenMan wrote:So you are a Parrot, and I am the Parrot killer [ifukkayou hehehehehehehehehe].

I think that what happened was, when you thought about what your persona was going to be, that you had to figure out a way to present yourself as someone who had done the time and put in the research, and came up with your own conclusions [much like I have, but you got confused and figured it out wrong]. You couldn't be a Parrot Killer, if you were a Parrot yourself, could you? But now the truth is out. You are a lowly Parrot, just spouting off about things that others have already come up with. Just repeating other people's lies.

Inversion fallacy. The laws of thermodynamics and Planck's laws are not lies. They are theories that have withstood many tests of falsifiability.

GreenMan wrote:And that is a shame, because you do appear to be a very knowledgeable person, capable of helping people understand what is going on. That would help you tremendously with your karma problems, that are getting worse and worse as time goes on. Did you know that you reap what you sow? You are sowing confusion, so you will become confused. Your world will become the product of confusion.

I am not confused.

GreenMan wrote:It's not too late to come back to reality.

Don't try philosophy on me. You have no clue.

GreenMan wrote:You will find that the challenges ahead of it are worth it,

You're trying to get me to join your religion?

GreenMan wrote:and your talents will be very useful in helping those who want to know what to do.

You are! You're trying to get me to join your religion!

GreenMan wrote:And then your karma will begin to balance out, and your world will slowly become harmonious with the universe.

Kumbaya.

GreenMan wrote:It's all up to you. I can lead a horse to water, but he has to reach down and take a drink himself.

I reject the Church of Global Warming...utterly.I reject the Church of Karl Marx...utterly.

Greenman wrote;Why yes it was. In fact, if you would get your head out of your ass and study the earth's past climate, you will find that it is always changing. The previous ten thousand years has been a plateau with a slight cooling trend over time. That is very rare. The planet is usually either getting warmer or cooler, and hardly ever stays the same as it has since coming out of the last glacial period.

OK Greenman, all jabs and insults out the window....for a moment. I know we'll never change your mind, so I'm honestly looking for a clean discussion.

What I want to know is how is it that you came to the conclusion that CO2 is warming the planet. If I look at your model, I see wild swings of natural warming and cooling, and then there is this tiny tiny uptick in temps, nowhere near previous natural warming.

Begin by looking at the model again. Compare the red line to the white or yellow line.Climate Model Without the 1000 year Prediction

Climate Model With the 1000 year Prediction

The only difference in the two graphs is the Celsius Scale, which had to be opened up to accommodate the predicted average temperature.

Those "wild swings of natural warming" are all predicted to occur, by the model, as you can see by comparing the two lines. So even though they were "natural," they were predictable. And every warm or cold period was accurately predicted throughout the entire range of data available.

Also know that I have a revised prediction, because I realized that there was an error in the prediction. I was using Mauna Loa readings, which aren't really global averages. I found them to be about 8% greater than what was stored in ice cores for 1950, when compared to Mauna Loa readings around 1960. So I took that into consideration in the model's forecast by using 92% of what Mauna Loa readings indicate currently, and that lowers the models projection to about 50C, or about a 35C rise. That's a 0.35C/decade rise though, so I don't think that is really an accurate time for it to get there. We are currently going up about 0.15~0.2C/decade [depending on who you listen to], so I expect it to take close to 1,500 years to get there, unless the rate of warming increases.

GasGuzzler wrote:Also, what is it, besides what you hear reported on the news, that actually makes you believe that it is actually warming? I have done fairly deep digging in your state of Michigan and can't find any evidence of warming, according to the local records.

The first thing I can recall on the news that made me think it was happening was the St Louis/Mississippi flood of 93 [I think it was]. And now of course, we are seeing Harvey provide the worst disaster in any of our lives. But that isn't what makes me believe it is actually warming. I consider NOAA's global average temperature as an indicator of our climate. According to that, it is getting warmer.Michigan isn't really a good proxy for the world's climate. It is currently getting cold here, when I think it should be staying warm for a little while longer. But I'm not really from here. I'm from south Georgia, and am just here working a contract job.

GasGuzzler wrote:I admittedly did poorly in school, so I haven't the science to engage in those discussions. What I do have is some knowledge in weather. I also have this experiment that happens every day right outside my door called the weather. When I hear someone tell me climate(average of all weather)is changing, I look outside to see if it's true. The things I'm being told are happening, well, they just aren't in my neck of my woods. What about Michigan? What are YOU seeing as proof positive that Michigan is getting warmer on average. What is it that convinces Greeman beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1. It is Definitely warming

Data from NOAA

GasGuzzler wrote:...and 2. It is definitely caused by CO2

My own Climate Model

GasGuzzler wrote:...and 3.This is far different than any other natural temp swing in the history of the earth.

The CO2 levels have not climbed this high, in the last million years anyway. And when I see what that amount of CO2, CH4, and N2O will do to our climate, I know for sure that it will be way different than anything that has happened in the last million years.

Thanks for the clean discussion. Now back to the banter, if you want. As someone pointed out, the pig loves it.

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse theory'. This is what the Church of Global Warming calls it's scripture.

GreenMan wrote:Well, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything.

Argument from randU. Quoting more random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

Random numbers is not a 'guestimate'. Guesstimates come out of statistics. You are illiterate about statistical math.

You never answered the question put to you:How many official thermometers are in the world? (It's ok to use a ballpark figure here)

I think someone answered that already, and I'm not even going to get into it. Your argument that we don't know the planet's temperature is total bull shit. We can compare last years average with this year's average and determine if it got warmer or cooler or stayed the same.

Everything you say in fact, is total bull shit. You are just repeating other people's lies [parroting], and trying to point out whatever error you think you can find in someone's reasoning. And you aren't too proud to make a few things up, just to cast doubt about the validity what someone said.

You are just a bought and paid for Koch loving troll. [Koch, pronounced like it looks, not like your favorite beverage]

Is that how you really want to be remembered by your family? Do you want your grandkids to have to explain how their grandfather was a famous troll, in the war on Global Warming, back in the early days, when there was something that could have been done to prevent all the perils that they are having to live through? The other kids will be whipping up on your grandchildren, because of what you did. Is that what you really want?

Then one more question, If the CO2 is up 25-35% in the 150 years, why do you believe the temperature isn't up 25%?

I have looked at temp records from all across the US where I can find reliable records...I honestly can't find a solid trend up or down. Why do you trust NOAA so much? Do you still trust it with Trump in office? Bush?
Edited on 01-09-2017 07:14

GasGuzzler wrote:Then one more question, If the CO2 is up 25-35% in the 150 years, why do you believe the temperature isn't up 25%?

I have looked at temp records from all across the US where I can find reliable records...I honestly can't find a solid trend up or down. Why do you trust NOAA so much? Do you still trust it with Trump in office? Bush?

Yes, I still trust NOAA's data, despite Trump being in office. All he can really do is hide the data. And I don't think the guys at NOAA are biasing their data to appease the current regime in the White House. So I doubt seriously that they will, all of the sudden, declare that it was all just a big mistake, and they now realize their mistake, just to make Trump happy, so they can keep their funding.

The average temperature is climbing at a rate determined by the amount of heat being applied versus the thermal mass of the planet's crust, oceans, and glaciers. The amount of heat being applied [sun and GHGs] currently is equivalent to 235.34 W/m2. If not for Greenhouse Gases and Dust, that amount would be 189.09 W/m2. So there is a total increase of about 20% over what the average temperature would be, if not for Greenhouse Gases[not counting water vapor]. That means that our global average temperature would be about 11~12C, if not for the warming affect of Greenhouse Gases[water vapor adds an additional ~30C to that for a total warming affect of about 33C(in other words, it would be about -17C if not for GHGs including Water Vapor].

In order to determine how much additional heat is being applied since the Industrial Age began, and we started putting more CO2 in the air than normal, we need to compare the concentration levels from then with now. To do that, I'll use ice core data. We were at about 275ppm at the start of the Industrial Revolution. The last concentration from EPICA Dome C shows the level at about 280ppm. Now we are running around 368ppm if we use 92% of the current Mauna Loa reading or 400ppm as an indication of the global average CO2 concentration level.

That is an increase of 93ppm since the start of the Industrial Revolution and now, which is a 33% increase. So we should see 33% more greenhouse gas warming than we saw around 1760, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. [That agrees with your 25-35% increase]. We were already seeing about a 10% increase then, over what the sun alone would provide. 189W/m2 compared to 195W/m2 is a 10% increase in warmth over what the sun would do by itself.

The amount of heating back then was about 195.68 W/m2, compared to today's heating of 235.34 W/m2, which is an increase of about 20% more overall warming, yet as you pointed out, we haven't seen that yet in the average global temperature, or in our region. That is because there was already 10% warming from Greenhouse Gases [minus water vapor] back then. And that means there should just be 10% additional warming now, than before the Industrial Revolution, due to Greenhouse Gas concentrations.

If we look at the temperature then, and the temperature now, we can see about a 1C difference, which is about 6%, instead of 10%. Sue me, if you think it will help. But I think the difference is because of the thermal mass of the planet. The heat is being applied, but the planet isn't a microwave oven. It's more like a brick pizza oven. It takes a while after you turn up the heat, before the bricks come up to temperature. But it eventually gets there.

OK, thanks for the detailed explanation. I will say that right or wrong, I do respect the effort you put into this. However, I do have more questions than answers now.

1. If the earth is like a brick oven and it takes more time to heat it gradually when more heat is applied, I assume you mean the surface is like the "brick"? If this is the case, then should we be seeing the ground temps warming also? Again, not seeing this in Iowa anyway. Farmers always trying to get the crops in early as possible to bring them to maturity before the first frost. Again last spring, they're in late. I watch this carefully as I am an avid bow hunter. Everything must be taken into account to plan that successful ambush. If the corn is still in the field, the deer will be too. Also side note with the corn, the farmers are again screaming this year because they need some heat to bring the crop along. We just didn't get good heat on it this year. Yet your NOAA heat map you put up in the Hurricane thread showed above average temps for the entire Midwest. Was it hot in Michigan this year?

2. All your calculations seem to be very precise. However, all of the data is estimates within 3-4C. Sure, it can give you trends and show the ups and downs. I would say it is like trying to split hairs with the flat end of an ax. How do you explain your precision that is derived from ballpark numbers? (mainly the ice core data)

3. Please revisit the CO2 in the air argument. Still not understanding why it's not blazing hot right now with CO2 up 33%. If it works like you say it does, with CO2 grabbing heat on it's way up, and then redirecting it back to the surface, then it should be hot now, whether CO2 sinks are full or not. CO2 cannot take a day off. Is CO2 evenly distributed around the planet? I would assume no. So if this stuff effects the weather, then I would think NOAA would have more measuring devices. But I have yet to see CO2 be taken into account when putting together a weather forecast. Your thoughts?

Once again, not a math magick man or scientist. I'm just a very ordinary guy simply comparing what I've been told to what can I see.
Edited on 01-09-2017 15:48

GreenMan wrote: When did Dr. Spencer become one of the "world's foremost climate scientists?"

"Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer's work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer's research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Dr. Spencer's first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com."

But of course YOUR idea of a prominent climate scientist is spot.

What you just proved is that you are willing to lie about anything. You are willing to DO anything to prevent the truth from coming out.

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse theory'. This is what the Church of Global Warming calls it's scripture.

GreenMan wrote:Well, actually, I knew it before I read the paper, but I did think it was closer to 15C. I'm not sure if thinking 15 or 16 is the temperature, is relevant to anything.

Argument from randU. Quoting more random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:But it does make your point loud and clear. There is some uncertainty. But I don't think we need to discount the theory just because the average global temperature isn't absolutely known. I think their best guestimate is good enough to work off of.

Random numbers is not a 'guestimate'. Guesstimates come out of statistics. You are illiterate about statistical math.

You never answered the question put to you:How many official thermometers are in the world? (It's ok to use a ballpark figure here)

I think someone answered that already,

No one has answered the question. Neither have you.

GreenMan wrote:and I'm not even going to get into it.

Because YOU DON'T KNOW!

GreenMan wrote:Your argument that we don't know the planet's temperature is total bull shit.

No, it's math.

GreenMan wrote:We can compare last years average with this year's average and determine if it got warmer or cooler or stayed the same.

Statistics doesn't work that way, dumbass. The result you get from such an average is biased because you failed to account for bias in the data. You also never seem to get the clue that ANY statistical summary MUST include the margin of error (which you never calculate).

Statistics is more than a simple average.

GreenMan wrote:Everything you say in fact, is total bull shit.

Bulverism.

GreenMan wrote:You are just repeating other people's lies [parroting],

Argument of the Stone. Strawman. You never seem to believe that people can and do present their own arguments. Must be from the way you swipe the arguments from others all the time using Holy Links.

GreenMan wrote:and trying to point out whatever error you think you can find in someone's reasoning.

Because you keep making them. Argument of the Stone.

GreenMan wrote:And you aren't too proud to make a few things up,

But I do. I coined the term Church of Global Warming. I specified why I consider it a religion. It is the same with the Church of Karl Marx.

GreenMan wrote:just to cast doubt about the validity what someone said.

Doesn't change a thing, dude. You are actually trying to justify using only the arguments of others as your own and the lazy thinking that results from it!

GreenMan wrote:You are just a bought and paid for Koch loving troll. [Koch, pronounced like it looks, not like your favorite beverage]

Nope. Neither of the Koch Bros. have paid me a dime. I have sold instrumentation to the oil refinery industry though.

GreenMan wrote:Is that how you really want to be remembered by your family?

You are trying to convert me again. You really are hilariously stupid.

GreenMan wrote:Do you want your grandkids to have to explain how their grandfather was a famous troll, in the war on Global Warming, back in the early days, when there was something that could have been done to prevent all the perils that they are having to live through?

The other kids will be whipping up on your grandchildren, because of what you did. Is that what you really want?

My kids are happy and prosperous. One is a partner in a business he founded with a friend of his. They make commercial display systems. The other is an international business analyst, working to improve trade between India and the United States.

They both know the truth about the Church of Global Warming and of the Church of Karl Marx.

You never learned. You are locked in your religious views. You even try to convert people to 'see the Truth'. I will have none of your 'Truth'.

GasGuzzler wrote:Once again, not a math magick man or scientist. I'm just a very ordinary guy simply comparing what I've been told to what can I see.

You don't need to be a math magick man (it really isn't magick, but magic uses math!), or a scientist. There are really only two or three theories to understand. The equations in them are fairly simple.

The first is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This theory states that whenever there is a difference of temperature between two regions, and there is a way for heat to flow from to the other (they are coupled), heat will flow at a rate determined solely by the difference between the two regions, and the coupling. The better the coupling, the faster heat will flow. The greater the difference with the same coupling, the faster heat will flow. Heat always flows from hot to cold. Never backwards. If there is no difference in temperature, heating stops. If coupling is removed, heating stops. There is no way to get heat to flow from cold to hot.

Another way to put it is called 'entropy'. This odd word basically means the randomness of a system. A good way to visualize it is to have two containers, one with white bugs and one with red bugs. This is an example of low entropy. It is organized.

Allowing a pathway between the two containers is like the coupling I mentioned earlier. Soon you will have a mix of bugs in both containers. Entropy has increased.

The 2nd law states that entropy always increases. It never decreases. This is true always. The seeming way we can 'collect' heat in one place is only because we are taking the energy to do that from somewhere else (which must be included in a consistent way. Energy is like the bugs.If it's concentrated somewhere, the 2nd law says it will dissipate.

For Earth, that means we get energy from the Sun, then radiate it back into space. The Earth is only 'in the way' so to speak of the energy coming from the Sun. It cannot heat itself.

On Earth, that means we start with a surface that is warm. This heats the atmosphere. Heat can flow by conduction (contact with the hotter region), convection (movement of material itself to colder region), or radiation (conversion to electromagnetic energy and back again).

The surface heats the atmosphere basically by conduction. CO2 can also be heated by radiance coming from the surface.

The atmosphere generally cools as you go higher. The CO2 is colder than the surface, so heat can flow to warm it. The reverse is not true. CO2 cannot heat the surface. It is colder than the surface (or at best the same temperature). It cannot do it by 'back radiation'. It cannot do it by contact. It cannot do it by convection. It cannot do it at all.

Space is colder than anything on Earth. Everything that has a temperature above the temperature of the very few molecules of space (about minus 455 deg F) tries to heat space. Space, however, is very large. It is so large it doesn't change temperature much. The Earth is just another particle in the way of the Sun trying to heat space around it.

The other theory is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law can be derived from Planck's laws of energy and light. His basic theory is that when you compare one photon with another, each has its own frequency. That frequency is the photon's 'color'. If the frequency is in a narrow range that our eyes are sensitive to (we have built in electromagnetic energy detectors!) then we see what we call a visible 'color'. White is all colors added up at once. Black is no light. Light has both an intensity (it's brightness) and a color.

All Planck was really saying is that a photon of one color has a different amount of energy than a photon of a different color. The number of photons per second is the brightness, or intensity of the light.

Light is simply electromagnetic energy. It is an electrostatic field (think rubbing a balloon on something to build up static electricity) and a magnetic field (we've all played with magnets) moving together. Visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, radio waves, microwaves, are all just light, but at different frequencies. It is possible to look at light either as a continuous wave, or as a packet of such waves (a photon). Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle explains why.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law took all the colors of light and combined them into one total energy. As a result the Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It combines all colors.

Now the law itself:

energy = SB constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4.

Where: energy is the power emitted (in photons per second over a fixed area of the emitting surface) SB constant is a constant of nature (used to convert the equation into our units of measurement). emissivity is a constant that is measured. It is how well something emits the light. A shiny piece of metal doesn't emit light that well. It reflects it well, (why its shiny), but it has poor emissivity. A black hunk of coal has good emissivity. It is black because it doesn't reflect much light. Emissivity and absorptivity are equal. If a material absorbs light well, it also emits light well. It's units are a number expressed as a percentage between two ideal values. temperature (in deg K)

Emissivity is probably the most misunderstood part of this equation. It is a measured value. It is constant. Emissivity doesn't change unless you change the surface at which point you will have to measure it again.

Emissivity is a percentage between a surface that is ideally black (the ideal black body absorbs all light and reflects or refracts no light) and ideally white (the ideal white body absorbs no light and reflects or refracts all light). These are ideals. These reference bodies do not exist in nature. Everything in nature is a 'gray' body...somewhere in between.

Emissivity is measured by first accurately measuring the temperature of the surface.

Then you measure the energy coming from the surface.

You compare that to the ideal bodies, assuming the same temperature.

The result is the emissivity value.

The basic equation describes that something appears brighter (more intense) the hotter it is. If something has a temperature above absolute zero, it is emitting light. The intensity of that light is determined by its temperature.

This is true for solids (which have an easily identifiable surface), liquids (somewhat less identifiable but a surface), and gasses (which have no visible surface, but they have a 'surface' area all the same).

If something makes Earth hotter, radiance (the intensity of energy) will increase. If something makes the Earth colder, radiance will decrease.

Similarly, if radiance is increasing, that means the temperature is increasing. If radiance is decreasing, that means temperature is decreasing. Everything else in the equation is a constant.

The Church of Global Warming depends on the use of Holy Gas that somehow absorbs light from the surface and either never lets the energy go, or uses that energy to in turn heat the surface. Either model means the photon never reached space. Radiance is reduced.

But at the same temperature is increased.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law says that this is not possible. If radiance is reduced, temperature is reduced. This is always true. The usual dance around this problem for the Church of Global Warming is to claim that the photon does eventually reach space, the Earth is now warmer, and radiance is increased.

That doesn't work. This imposes a sequence that is not in the equation. It is basically saying that radiance is reduced for only a moment while the temperature is increased [i]during that same moment[I]. Then everything works as advertised in the equation.

There is no sequence. There is no such moment. The equation is always in force. It works for all bodies (in this case the Earth and its atmosphere)...all the time...never ceasing...never temporarily suspended.

Another dance sometimes attempted is that emissivity changes with color. In other words, emissivity is different for each color. This is basically trying to justify that a magick color (infrared light) has a different emissivity than another magick color (visible light).

This doesn't work. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It combines all colors. That includes the emissivity value. It includes all frequencies of light.

See? The only math needed is simple arithmetic. The only science needed are two theories.

I like to refer to the two arguments of the 'greenhouse gas theory' as the Magick Blanket argument (which ignores the effect of removing coupling in BOTH directions, and assume that you are able to remove coupling at all using a Holy Gas), and the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument (which attempts to heat a hotter region with a colder one and which attempts to either rewrite or ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

These two theories did require a lengthy response to explain them on hopefully a more comfortable level for you, but I hope this clears up why I keep referring back to these laws when confronting the Church of Global Warming Scripture. Despite these, they will do anything to either rewrite these laws or attempt to ignore them (by producing manufactured data to show how wrong I am).

I took the time to post it not only to clarify my position to some, but because I think you truly can grasp these theories and understand them in the context of the climate debate here.

Into the Night wrote: (continuous claims that there is no such thing as science unless he says it's so.)

Look I have explained to you that the Stefan-Boltzmann law, that you so often quote, fully shows that you can show the temperature of the Earth. For reasons entirely unknown to me you refuse to believe that EVEN when you say the same thing.

The problem with ground temperature measurements are what I also showed to you - the accuracy of the measurements are 10 times less than actual temperature rise that NASA and NOAA are committed to via data lists.

We have seen that the satellite temperature record which is the most accurate method of measuring MGT haven't shown any temperature rise no matter what that idiot greenman seems to believe because he doesn't understand statistics.

The end result of all of this is that since 1979 there doesn't seem to have been a temperature rise measured by the most accurate method we have for determining the MGT.

This begs the question - has there been any significant global warming that isn't purely recovery from the little ice age? It also begs the question - has anyone looked to see if there were prolonged cold periods before the past warming periods?

GasGuzzler wrote:OK, thanks for the detailed explanation. I will say that right or wrong, I do respect the effort you put into this. However, I do have more questions than answers now.

Me too. I have been pondering how to determine some of the things that you are asking about. I built that climate model back in 2008, and knew for sure that we are in trouble in the long run. But it doesn't really indicate what to expect in the next few years. What I can tell you from knowing that it is real is that the warming trend will continue, so it's simply a matter of determining what the trend is. Unfortunately, we don't know what a couple of tenths of a degree of additional warmth will do. Doesn't seem like much. That's the kind of thing that Al Gore got into. I don't think what he was predicting is really predictable, unless you are clairvoyant. And if you are clairvoyant, people are just going to think you are crazy. Hell, they don't even want to listen to scientists. Imagine if Elijah showed up, telling people to get ready for Judgement Day. They would just stone him to death.

GasGuzzler wrote:1. If the earth is like a brick oven and it takes more time to heat it gradually when more heat is applied, I assume you mean the surface is like the "brick"? If this is the case, then should we be seeing the ground temps warming also?

That depends on what you mean by "ground temps." If you mean the surface, then yes, but you would have to measure it all day to see what the maximum temperature it went to throughout the day, and then compare it to the previous year's temperature. Of course, you would have to average the readings over a few weeks or a month, to account for variations.

But if you wanted to get real scientific. You could drill down about 30 feet and measure the temperature there. That temperature is the regional average temperature for the year. Just leave your probe down there, and monitor it. You don't even need to average the readings, because what you are reading is a natural average.

Knowing that is part of the key to understanding what is happening. Consider, if you will, that there is a layer of ground, 30 feet down, that is 100 feet thick [I'm not sure how far down it goes before the temperature starts changing, so sue me if it's 50, or 500 feet, doesn't matter for this explanation]. That layer of ground goes all the way around the globe, and even through the oceans, because they have a similar band of water that maintains a somewhat constant temperature throughout the year, though it's not really a band.

That band, let's call it, is actually part of our climate's regulation. It's like a flywheel that is spinning. If you drop power to the flywheel, it keeps turning for a while, because of it's kinetic energy. So if power is just dropped for a moment, the flywheel hardly slows down. We experience that affect daily, when the sun goes down. It does cool off, but it doesn't get as cold as the dark side of the moon though. That's because the ground holds heat, and the air does also. The ground is being cooled by the air, which is being cooled by the various layers of atmosphere above, until the heat is finally released into space.

As soon as the sun goes down, the ground begins to cool. It cools off at a rate that is determined by the temperature of the air versus the temperature of the ground. So if the air temperature is just a little above normal, then the ground won't cool off nearly as much as it normally would. Over time, that will cause the band [ground 30 feet down] temperature to rise, because the air temperature also gets a little higher during the day also, so the ground temperature rises just a bit more than normal.

GasGuzzler wrote:Again, not seeing this in Iowa anyway. Farmers always trying to get the crops in early as possible to bring them to maturity before the first frost. Again last spring, they're in late. I watch this carefully as I am an avid bow hunter. Everything must be taken into account to plan that successful ambush. If the corn is still in the field, the deer will be too. Also side note with the corn, the farmers are again screaming this year because they need some heat to bring the crop along. We just didn't get good heat on it this year. Yet your NOAA heat map you put up in the Hurricane thread showed above average temps for the entire Midwest. Was it hot in Michigan this year?

I got here in July and it was hot, as expected. I don't think there was any kind of heat wave going on though. It's cold here now, and I think that is unusual, but I'm from Georgia, and have lived most of the last 13 years in New England, so I don't know if this weather is normal for Michigan this time of year or not. It's not for me.

I have been monitoring the weather patterns for quite some time now, and I have noticed heat waves that come through the south for longer periods of time now than they used to. We're seeing a few degrees warmer and a few days longer than previous heat waves. I got to witness those going on the last two years, because I was working down in Greensboro, NC the last two summers. And it got hot. Damn hot.

I broke up with my woman last winter, so I got to spend the winter down in Georgia with my family. And it was the mildest winter I have experienced in quite some time, especially coming down from New Hampshire. Short sleeves except for about 2 weeks around the end of January. Jacket in the morning, short sleeves by afternoon. That's a little above normal temperature.

I'm seeing fires out west, so bad that my ex is having a hard time buying cedar for her tiny house. She has to find it at the small saw mills where they have some in stock, because Lowes and Home Depot can't get it. For real, this is going on now. We broke up, but I'm helping her finish the tiny house that I started building for her.

But anyway, we are fortunate, so far. Most of the deaths due to heat waves has been "over there," in the middle east deserts, like in Pakistan. They don't have a giant heat sink keeping their oceans cool, like we do. Take a look at the Indian Ocean Temperature and you will see what I mean. It gets to just sit there and cook. And so does that part of the world.

It will eventually get here. Just be patient. You will eventually get to just pick those starving deer up on the side of the road, instead of having to shoot them. It will just take a while, which is what makes this problem so difficult to deal with. People would react if it was happening like Al said. But instead, it's happening like it's happening, in slow motion. We get to see a storm once in a while like Harvey, that just comes through and cleans our clock. Or forest fires like the one that destroyed Gatlinburg. Problem is, it's so gradual, that people begin to accept these things as normal. But they aren't. They are extreme events. They are becoming less rare, but they are still extreme events. And they will become more common. And people will begin to accept them as "normal." We're doing it already. Don't you think Harvey was a normal hurricane, that just happened to stall out over Houston? But what about all the flooding that happened after he left Houston? Was that "normal." I don't think so, and I grew up in south Georgia and spent most of my career in the south east, where we got to see a lot of hurricanes come through. I know what a "normal" hurricane looks like, and Harvey wasn't one of them. Very rarely do you see flooding from hurricanes once you get a few miles inland. Mostly wind damage. The amount of water Harvey was carrying was incredible. Not normal now, but that is supposed to become "normal," according to those who know about these things.

GasGuzzler wrote:

2. All your calculations seem to be very precise. However, all of the data is estimates within 3-4C. Sure, it can give you trends and show the ups and downs. I would say it is like trying to split hairs with the flat end of an ax. How do you explain your precision that is derived from ballpark numbers? (mainly the ice core data)

I'm going to get back on this. Gotta go get something to eat at Outback. Thinking about a 10oz Victoria Fillet, a Baked Potato, and some of them killer onion thingys, and a 20oz IPA. Probably be tomorrow before I get back on this question. It will take a while to explain, as you will see.

GasGuzzler wrote:

3. Please revisit the CO2 in the air argument. Still not understanding why it's not blazing hot right now with CO2 up 33%. If it works like you say it does, with CO2 grabbing heat on it's way up, and then redirecting it back to the surface, then it should be hot now, whether CO2 sinks are full or not. CO2 cannot take a day off. Is CO2 evenly distributed around the planet? I would assume no. So if this stuff effects the weather, then I would think NOAA would have more measuring devices. But I have yet to see CO2 be taken into account when putting together a weather forecast. Your thoughts?

Once again, not a math magick man or scientist. I'm just a very ordinary guy simply comparing what I've been told to what can I see.

Into the Night wrote: (continuous claims that there is no such thing as science unless he says it's so.)

Look I have explained to you that the Stefan-Boltzmann law, that you so often quote, fully shows that you can show the temperature of the Earth.

No, you can't. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. You can't know the emissivity of the Earth with knowing the temperature in the first place!

Wake wrote:For reasons entirely unknown to me you refuse to believe that EVEN when you say the same thing.

I never said you can measure the temperature of the Earth using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can only measure the temperature of something with a KNOWN EMISSIVITY.

Wake wrote:The problem with ground temperature measurements are what I also showed to you - the accuracy of the measurements are 10 times less than actual temperature rise that NASA and NOAA are committed to via data lists.

Ground temperature measurements are completely accurate. These thermometers are calibrated to within a fraction of a degree of accuracy. They are checked annually.

Wake wrote:We have seen that the satellite temperature record which is the most accurate method of measuring MGT

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.

Wake wrote:haven't shown any temperature rise

It is not possible to determine that either.

Wake wrote:no matter what that idiot greenman seems to believe because he doesn't understand statistics.

Neither do you.

Wake wrote:The end result of all of this is that since 1979 there doesn't seem to have been a temperature rise measured by the most accurate method we have for determining the MGT.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Wake wrote:This begs the question - has there been any significant global warming that isn't purely recovery from the little ice age?

The question isn't begged.

Wake wrote:It also begs the question - has anyone looked to see if there were prolonged cold periods before the past warming periods?

Into the Night wrote: (continuous claims that there is no such thing as science unless he says it's so.)

Look I have explained to you that the Stefan-Boltzmann law, that you so often quote, fully shows that you can show the temperature of the Earth.

No, you can't. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. You can't know the emissivity of the Earth with knowing the temperature in the first place!

Wake wrote:For reasons entirely unknown to me you refuse to believe that EVEN when you say the same thing.

I never said you can measure the temperature of the Earth using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can only measure the temperature of something with a KNOWN EMISSIVITY.

Wake wrote:The problem with ground temperature measurements are what I also showed to you - the accuracy of the measurements are 10 times less than actual temperature rise that NASA and NOAA are committed to via data lists.

Ground temperature measurements are completely accurate. These thermometers are calibrated to within a fraction of a degree of accuracy. They are checked annually.

Wake wrote:We have seen that the satellite temperature record which is the most accurate method of measuring MGT

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.

Wake wrote:haven't shown any temperature rise

It is not possible to determine that either.

Wake wrote:no matter what that idiot greenman seems to believe because he doesn't understand statistics.

Neither do you.

Wake wrote:The end result of all of this is that since 1979 there doesn't seem to have been a temperature rise measured by the most accurate method we have for determining the MGT.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Wake wrote:This begs the question - has there been any significant global warming that isn't purely recovery from the little ice age?

The question isn't begged.

Wake wrote:It also begs the question - has anyone looked to see if there were prolonged cold periods before the past warming periods?

That question isn't begged either.

Quite frankly I don't know what to do with you. If you were capable of even moderate algebra you would know that you can transpose terms in order to learn the emissivity. But somehow you are incapable of so much as thinking along those lines.

I showed you a study that SHOWED that only something like 20% of the ground based temperature measuring centers are accurate to within 5 degrees and you're talking about them being checked ANNUALLY? Oh, that's right, you don't accept studies of the devices you have heretofore proclaimed as inaccurate.

You continue to tell me that it isn't possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Even WITHOUT the ground measurements and even without the satellite data we KNOW the emissions from the Sun. We know the amount of power that is reflected from the upper atmosphere, we know the amount reflected out of the lower atmosphere by Raleigh Scattering. We know how much energy is lost via reflection from tropospheric clouds of various types. That means we know how much energy actually reaches the ground. From this alone we can calculate the expected MGT. The fact that the satellite data is similar to this might have given you a hint that calculating the MGT is not only possible but occurs every single 24 hour period but it seems to bypass you altogether.

Before you tell me I don't understand statistics you had better show us that you even know what statistical analysis is. So far everything you've talked about is sheer bunk.

Wow, you finally presented your argument. Thank you.Let's take a look at that, as see if we can tell what all the fuss is about.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Once again, not a math magick man or scientist. I'm just a very ordinary guy simply comparing what I've been told to what can I see.

You don't need to be a math magick man (it really isn't magick, but magic uses math!), or a scientist. There are really only two or three theories to understand. The equations in them are fairly simple.

The first is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This theory states that whenever there is a difference of temperature between two regions, and there is a way for heat to flow from to the other (they are coupled), heat will flow at a rate determined solely by the difference between the two regions, and the coupling. The better the coupling, the faster heat will flow. The greater the difference with the same coupling, the faster heat will flow. Heat always flows from hot to cold. Never backwards. If there is no difference in temperature, heating stops. If coupling is removed, heating stops. There is no way to get heat to flow from cold to hot.

I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface. What happens if you reduce the coupling's ability to conduct heat? Oh, you answered that, if a better coupling means the heat will flow faster, a worse coupling means the heat will move slower. Would that not cause a build up of heat at the surface, since it can't cool as quickly as it could with a better coupling? I'm thinking that yes, it would. It's kind of like putting a jacket on, on a cold day. You are changing the coupling between your body and the air from light clothes to insulated clothes. You can fee the warmth immediately after putting on a coat, even though the coat has no heater. It is just slowing the heat loss. And that is what Greenhouse Gases, including Water Vapor are doing. They are slowing heat loss, which does not break the rule.

Into the Night wrote:

Another way to put it is called 'entropy'. This odd word basically means the randomness of a system. A good way to visualize it is to have two containers, one with white bugs and one with red bugs. This is an example of low entropy. It is organized.

Allowing a pathway between the two containers is like the coupling I mentioned earlier. Soon you will have a mix of bugs in both containers. Entropy has increased.

The 2nd law states that entropy always increases. It never decreases. This is true always. The seeming way we can 'collect' heat in one place is only because we are taking the energy to do that from somewhere else (which must be included in a consistent way. Energy is like the bugs.If it's concentrated somewhere, the 2nd law says it will dissipate.

For Earth, that means we get energy from the Sun, then radiate it back into space. The Earth is only 'in the way' so to speak of the energy coming from the Sun. It cannot heat itself.

On Earth, that means we start with a surface that is warm. This heats the atmosphere. Heat can flow by conduction (contact with the hotter region), convection (movement of material itself to colder region), or radiation (conversion to electromagnetic energy and back again).

The surface heats the atmosphere basically by conduction. CO2 can also be heated by radiance coming from the surface.

The atmosphere generally cools as you go higher. The CO2 is colder than the surface, so heat can flow to warm it. The reverse is not true. CO2 cannot heat the surface. It is colder than the surface (or at best the same temperature). It cannot do it by 'back radiation'. It cannot do it by contact. It cannot do it by convection. It cannot do it at all.

Space is colder than anything on Earth. Everything that has a temperature above the temperature of the very few molecules of space (about minus 455 deg F) tries to heat space. Space, however, is very large. It is so large it doesn't change temperature much. The Earth is just another particle in the way of the Sun trying to heat space around it.

The other theory is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law can be derived from Planck's laws of energy and light. His basic theory is that when you compare one photon with another, each has its own frequency. That frequency is the photon's 'color'. If the frequency is in a narrow range that our eyes are sensitive to (we have built in electromagnetic energy detectors!) then we see what we call a visible 'color'. White is all colors added up at once. Black is no light. Light has both an intensity (it's brightness) and a color.

All Planck was really saying is that a photon of one color has a different amount of energy than a photon of a different color. The number of photons per second is the brightness, or intensity of the light.

Light is simply electromagnetic energy. It is an electrostatic field (think rubbing a balloon on something to build up static electricity) and a magnetic field (we've all played with magnets) moving together. Visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, radio waves, microwaves, are all just light, but at different frequencies. It is possible to look at light either as a continuous wave, or as a packet of such waves (a photon). Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle explains why.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law took all the colors of light and combined them into one total energy. As a result the Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It combines all colors.

Now the law itself:

energy = SB constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4.

Where: energy is the power emitted (in photons per second over a fixed area of the emitting surface) SB constant is a constant of nature (used to convert the equation into our units of measurement). emissivity is a constant that is measured. It is how well something emits the light. A shiny piece of metal doesn't emit light that well. It reflects it well, (why its shiny), but it has poor emissivity. A black hunk of coal has good emissivity. It is black because it doesn't reflect much light. Emissivity and absorptivity are equal. If a material absorbs light well, it also emits light well. It's units are a number expressed as a percentage between two ideal values. temperature (in deg K)

Emissivity is probably the most misunderstood part of this equation. It is a measured value. It is constant. Emissivity doesn't change unless you change the surface at which point you will have to measure it again.

Emissivity is a percentage between a surface that is ideally black (the ideal black body absorbs all light and reflects or refracts no light) and ideally white (the ideal white body absorbs no light and reflects or refracts all light). These are ideals. These reference bodies do not exist in nature. Everything in nature is a 'gray' body...somewhere in between.

Emissivity is measured by first accurately measuring the temperature of the surface.

Then you measure the energy coming from the surface.

You compare that to the ideal bodies, assuming the same temperature.

The result is the emissivity value.

The basic equation describes that something appears brighter (more intense) the hotter it is. If something has a temperature above absolute zero, it is emitting light. The intensity of that light is determined by its temperature.

This is true for solids (which have an easily identifiable surface), liquids (somewhat less identifiable but a surface), and gasses (which have no visible surface, but they have a 'surface' area all the same).

If something makes Earth hotter, radiance (the intensity of energy) will increase. If something makes the Earth colder, radiance will decrease.

Similarly, if radiance is increasing, that means the temperature is increasing. If radiance is decreasing, that means temperature is decreasing. Everything else in the equation is a constant.

The Church of Global Warming depends on the use of Holy Gas that somehow absorbs light from the surface and either never lets the energy go, or uses that energy to in turn heat the surface. Either model means the photon never reached space. Radiance is reduced.

Ok, yeah, I think I see the problem, here. You are measuring radiance from space, and not from the surface. This law you keep using, let's call it the Stefen Bozo Law, for short, is not being broken at all. It's your reasoning that is broken. The Stephen Bozo law doesn't say that all the photons have to reach space. It just says that they have to be emitted by the body. You are trying to conclude that if they don't make it into space that they were not emitted, but they were. They were just re-purposed. Instead of getting to go flying off for lord knows where, they were absorbed by Greenhouse Gases, and turned into thermal energy, warming the air, just a tad bit.

That tad bit slows the planet's ability to cool, just a tad bit. So a tad bit less heat gets to leave the surface and gets stored in the ground, by raising the ground temperature just a tad bit. The problem is that those tad bits add up over time, and become big chunks in the long run.

Into the Night wrote:

But at the same temperature is increased.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law says that this is not possible. If radiance is reduced, temperature is reduced. This is always true. The usual dance around this problem for the Church of Global Warming is to claim that the photon does eventually reach space, the Earth is now warmer, and radiance is increased.

That doesn't work. This imposes a sequence that is not in the equation. It is basically saying that radiance is reduced for only a moment while the temperature is increased [i]during that same moment[I]. Then everything works as advertised in the equation.

There is no sequence. There is no such moment. The equation is always in force. It works for all bodies (in this case the Earth and its atmosphere)...all the time...never ceasing...never temporarily suspended.

Another dance sometimes attempted is that emissivity changes with color. In other words, emissivity is different for each color. This is basically trying to justify that a magick color (infrared light) has a different emissivity than another magick color (visible light).

This doesn't work. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It combines all colors. That includes the emissivity value. It includes all frequencies of light.

See? The only math needed is simple arithmetic. The only science needed are two theories.

I'm thinking you must be talking the only math needed is simple arithmetic and two theories for debunking Global Warming. So I'm thinking it is going to take a little more than that, since your two theories don't really contradict the Global Warming Theory. They explain it, instead.

Into the Night wrote:

I like to refer to the two arguments of the 'greenhouse gas theory' as the Magick Blanket argument (which ignores the effect of removing coupling in BOTH directions, and assume that you are able to remove coupling at all using a Holy Gas), and the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument (which attempts to heat a hotter region with a colder one and which attempts to either rewrite or ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

These two theories did require a lengthy response to explain them on hopefully a more comfortable level for you, but I hope this clears up why I keep referring back to these laws when confronting the Church of Global Warming Scripture. Despite these, they will do anything to either rewrite these laws or attempt to ignore them (by producing manufactured data to show how wrong I am).

I took the time to post it not only to clarify my position to some, but because I think you truly can grasp these theories and understand them in the context of the climate debate here.

Thank you for taking the time to post your explanation for rejecting science that is accepted around the world by virtually all major governments, except ours. It helps to know these things, so that we can all just discount them and the people who preach them.

Neither of the laws are broken. The coupling is being modified by the effect of Greenhouse Gases warming slightly. The warmer the air, the slower it conducts heat from the surface, according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That is all that is going on.

Radiation from the surface of the planet is not reduced at all by Greenhouse Gases. They can't be, because they haven't been encountered yet. So the Stefen Bozo [I'm not going to memorize that last name, because it's irrelevant] is not violated at all. You are just adding a few words to it, by declaring that the radiance has to be determined from space. It doesn't. Radiance generated by the earth can only be measured accurately from the surface, because after that it encounters Greenhouse Gases, which absorb so of it. Energy can't be destroyed, so it is converted into thermal energy, and very lightly warmed the planet.

You might as well switch sides, because you have been debunked. You are all washed up as a Parrot Killer Parrot for the Church of AGW Denial. If you can make up the Church of Global Warming, then I can make up the Church of AGW Denial. And I can also destroy the Church of AGW Denial, because its leadership is a bunch of fruit loops that don't care about the future of humanity.

But I'm starting to think that we can get by without you, so you need to hurry up and jump over, while it's still allowed.

GreenMan wrote:Wow, you finally presented your argument. Thank you.Let's take a look at that, as see if we can tell what all the fuss is about.I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface. What happens if you reduce the coupling's ability to conduct heat?

Since you don't understand a single thing you're talking about I'll tell you what would happen - if you interrupted so much as one watt of heat from the surface into outer space you'd have been cooked just as if you were on the surface of Venus you putz.

You know nothing about science and you shoot your mouth off continuously.

Into the Night wrote: (continuous claims that there is no such thing as science unless he says it's so.)

Look I have explained to you that the Stefan-Boltzmann law, that you so often quote, fully shows that you can show the temperature of the Earth.

No, you can't. You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. You can't know the emissivity of the Earth with knowing the temperature in the first place!

Wake wrote:For reasons entirely unknown to me you refuse to believe that EVEN when you say the same thing.

I never said you can measure the temperature of the Earth using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can only measure the temperature of something with a KNOWN EMISSIVITY.

Wake wrote:The problem with ground temperature measurements are what I also showed to you - the accuracy of the measurements are 10 times less than actual temperature rise that NASA and NOAA are committed to via data lists.

Ground temperature measurements are completely accurate. These thermometers are calibrated to within a fraction of a degree of accuracy. They are checked annually.

Wake wrote:We have seen that the satellite temperature record which is the most accurate method of measuring MGT

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.

Wake wrote:haven't shown any temperature rise

It is not possible to determine that either.

Wake wrote:no matter what that idiot greenman seems to believe because he doesn't understand statistics.

Neither do you.

Wake wrote:The end result of all of this is that since 1979 there doesn't seem to have been a temperature rise measured by the most accurate method we have for determining the MGT.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Wake wrote:This begs the question - has there been any significant global warming that isn't purely recovery from the little ice age?

The question isn't begged.

Wake wrote:It also begs the question - has anyone looked to see if there were prolonged cold periods before the past warming periods?

That question isn't begged either.

Quite frankly I don't know what to do with you.

You might try to understand the math. A good study of formal logic would probably do you good also.

Wake wrote:If you were capable of even moderate algebra you would know that you can transpose terms in order to learn the emissivity.

You cannot determine emissivity that way.

Wake wrote:But somehow you are incapable of so much as thinking along those lines.

Because it doesn't work.

Wake wrote:I showed you a study that SHOWED that only something like 20% of the ground based temperature measuring centers are accurate to within 5 degrees

A study is not a proof. NOAA weather station thermometers are built to accuracies within a fraction of a degree.

Wake wrote:and you're talking about them being checked ANNUALLY?

Yes. They are checked annually.

Wake wrote:Oh, that's right, you don't accept studies of the devices you have heretofore proclaimed as inaccurate.

The thermometers are very accurate.

Wake wrote:You continue to tell me that it isn't possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Because it isn't.

Wake wrote:Even WITHOUT the ground measurements and even without the satellite data we KNOW the emissions from the Sun.

Big hairy deal.

Wake wrote:We know the amount of power that is reflected from the upper atmosphere,

You don't. Argument from randU.

Wake wrote:we know the amount reflected out of the lower atmosphere by Raleigh Scattering.

You don't. Argument from randU.

Wake wrote:We know how much energy is lost via reflection from tropospheric clouds of various types.

You don't. Argument from randU.

Wake wrote:That means we know how much energy actually reaches the ground.

You don't. Argument from randU.

Wake wrote:From this alone we can calculate the expected MGT.

Not possible. You are using random numbers as constants.

Wake wrote:The fact that the satellite data is similar to this

Satellites are unable to measure temperature.

Wake wrote:might have given you a hint that calculating the MGT is not only possible but occurs every single 24 hour period but it seems to bypass you altogether.

It is not possible to calculate the temperature of the Earth.

Wake wrote:Before you tell me I don't understand statistics

You don't.

Wake wrote:you had better show us that you even know what statistical analysis is.

I am not going to write a book here. To understand statistical math, you must first understand the mathematics of random numbers and the mathematics of probability.

Wake wrote:So far everything you've talked about is sheer bunk.

Mathematics is not bunk. May I suggest you first start with learning the mathematics of random numbers?

GreenMan wrote:Wow, you finally presented your argument. Thank you.Let's take a look at that, as see if we can tell what all the fuss is about.I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface. What happens if you reduce the coupling's ability to conduct heat?

Since you don't understand a single thing you're talking about I'll tell you what would happen - if you interrupted so much as one watt of heat from the surface into outer space you'd have been cooked just as if you were on the surface of Venus you putz.

You know nothing about science and you shoot your mouth off continuously.

So 1 watt of heat would cook me? That must be a giant watt, lol.

To start with, what I said was that those watts of heat that the earth's surface is putting out [that warms the air and eventually make it to space] are being slowed down slightly, by air that is slightly warmer than it would be without those nasty greenhouse gases [that make it so warm here on earth]. Not sure if you understand that part of it. The slight warming of the air occurs due to absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases, which heat up when radiation of the right wavelength strike them. They are like tiny little heaters, spread out everywhere.

And those tiny little heaters raise the temperature of the air slightly, and that slows down the transfer of heat from the surface to outer space. The hotter something is in relation to something else is part of what determines the rate of heat transfer is why. If the air temp goes up a little, the surface temp isn't quite as much hotter than it was before, so conduction slows down just a bit.

Not much advanced science needed to understand that. So I'm wondering what your problem is, since you think you are such a wiz at things like science, and statistics and things like that. Do you have any skills that allow you to understand nature? I think we covered that, and you can follow blue prints, apparently, because you put a bunch of stuff together. Not sure that really helps. Were you able to mark up those blue prints as you were building that fancy stuff, to show what modifications were made as it was being built? Were you the one who figured out what modifications to make to fix whatever the problem was? Or did you just go report the problem to someone else that would tell you what to do? I'm thinking the latter is what you did, since you don't appear to have much common sense.

And I'm thinking that it just takes common sense to understand Global Warming. And maybe that's why even some of the smartest sounding people do not understand it. Common Sense and Knowledge are two very different things. A person with good common sense can use knowledge to figure out problems and solve them. A person without common sense can just run around bitching like a dog about problems. They can never offer solutions, because they don't have an sense.

GasGuzzler wrote:3. Please revisit the CO2 in the air argument. Still not understanding why it's not blazing hot right now with CO2 up 33%. If it works like you say it does, with CO2 grabbing heat on it's way up, and then redirecting it back to the surface, then it should be hot now, whether CO2 sinks are full or not. CO2 cannot take a day off. Is CO2 evenly distributed around the planet? I would assume no. So if this stuff effects the weather, then I would think NOAA would have more measuring devices. But I have yet to see CO2 be taken into account when putting together a weather forecast. Your thoughts?

Ok, I think I see the disconnect. CO2 is up around 33% over pre-Industrial times. But the temperature is not up anywhere near 33% more than pre-Industrial times.

That's because CO2 is not the only thing heating the planet. It is easier to look at CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases as a source of heat, even though they are indirect heat. First, consider that the sun is the Primary Source of Heat. It's about 90% of where our heat comes from. The Greenhouse Gases add the other 10%. [Not sure if those percentages are right, but it doesn't matter to understand this, but I can check what they are, if you are interested]. So in the last couple hundred years the sun's output hasn't changed much. We can consider it constant. It' slugging away with it's 90%, while the Greenhouse Gas's contribution is increasing 33%. That means that the 10% chunk is increasing by 33%. The way that works out with real numbers gives away what is going on. Let's say the sun is providing 90 watts or heat, and gases are providing 10 watts of heat. That is holding us at a steady 100 degrees [In our example, 1 watt provides 1 degree of warmth]. Now let's add 33% more heat from the gases. 10 * 1.33 = 13.3 So we are increasing the temperature 3.3 degrees to 103.3. That is just a 3.3% rise in temperature, even though the gas concentration increased 33%.

So I think you are expecting a 33% rise in temperature, when you should be expecting a 3% rise, or something like that. I would have to go back and check the numbers again to give you exact percentages, which is what I did before. And they work out to a more reasonable relationship. I think it was that we should expect about 10% more warming with 33% more gas, but we have only seen about 6% more warming. And I think that difference is just lag. In fact, I think it is worse than that. Here's why.

The gases don't add linearly. They add exponentially, by the power of 4. So if you double the concentration of gases, you add 16, not 2. It's a scary thing when you think about it.

So here's what's really going on. It's the lag. Forget the math I did earlier. That's not even relevant, really. It's one way of looking at it, but it's not an accurate depiction of what is really going on. It works like that, but it's worse. That 33% increase is ^4.

That will eventually push the planet's average temperature up tremendously. The reason you don't feel the additional heat is because it is a very gradual increase of air temperature. It doesn't take a lot to eventually warm the planet. The reason is that it's warming the ground a little bit more each day that it would have without the gases. That warmth accumulates in the ground and in the water, because not as much heat could escape because of the little bit of warmer air. A little more heat moved down in the ground, warming the ground 30 feet deep just a little bit. That heat is stored energy, which is making the surface a little warmer during the daytime, when the sun is shining. As the ground gets warmer, it slows down on heating from the surface, causing the surface to warm slightly. That warming causes more warmth to be felt in the air.

So it's a very slow process. You are heating the ground, all around the planet, by increasing the air temperature just slightly. But it keeps increasing slowly, as long as there is this much gas in the air. I believe the current rate of increase is about 0.2C/decade, or 2C/century. I don't expect that to increase much over time, but it could. There were periods of time during the last glacial period when the temperature [at least in the Northern Hemisphere] increased about 8C in just a few years.

The slower we roast the better, because it gives us time to work out a solution. It's important now to acknowledge that we are in trouble, so that we can seriously begin to work out a solution. The longer we put it off, the higher the temperature will eventually climb.

2. All your calculations seem to be very precise. However, all of the data is estimates within 3-4C. Sure, it can give you trends and show the ups and downs. I would say it is like trying to split hairs with the flat end of an ax. How do you explain your precision that is derived from ballpark numbers? (mainly the ice core data)

The data that is within 3-4C is just the climate model's output. Worst error is actually about 3.4C. That could be from a lot of things, but the output is generally less than 0.5C of what the temperature actually was. So it is a very accurate model, as you can see from the chart that it produced.http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/climatemodel_800kyr.jpg

The data that the model used did have show what the accuracy of their data was. I didn't use that in any way. I just went with the data as presented. I could look up what those numbers are, if it would make anyone feel better.

The data that most Deniers point at as being erroneous is the gas data. And there is some question about how closely what they measured in the ice resembles what was really present in the air, and for good reason. The gases leak through the ice for a few thousand years, so some gas escapes completely. [I found that to be about 10%]. But the big deal in using the gas for climate reconstruction is in the dating of it. That's what gave the evil scientists such a hard time. It's migrating up, from the time the snow falls, so the ice that was made 10,000 years ago actually contains the gas from 15,000 years ago. And the gas concentration of 10,000 years ago is found in the ice that was made 5,000 years ago. They figured it all out, but let's say there was plenty of room for error, when you consider that they were working on 800,000 years worth of ice.

You can see some of that error, if you look at the model's output, where it lags the temperature by a few thousand years, but still makes the little dips and peaks as the actual temperature did. That's a time shift, so to speak. It's not a big deal, if you know what causes it. It's just something to take into consideration when analyzing the model's error. And there are a few places that the model shows either a higher or lower temperature predicted than actual. I'm thinking that was caused by high or low gas readings, for some reason. Those are rare, and occurred in the older ice samples.

But there is one significant and repeatable error that shows up when the planet is taking a nose dive into a glacial period. The temperature drops quicker than the model predicts, about every time. Once the temperature bottoms out, the model catches up and tracks good after that. So I know for sure that something else is going on, and I think I have a feasible explanation for it.

We know that water vapor is the best of the greenhouse gases, and is also the most abundant. So why doesn't runaway greenhouse effect occur? It should, because the warmer it gets, the more water vapor there is in the air. I'm thinking that water vapor is in saturation currently. It is already absorbing all of the bandwidth that is being emitted by the earth, that affects it. So adding more water vapor doesn't add more heat. It actually does the opposite, by blocking the sun. So it is working in our favor, for now.

But something else happens when the climate swings the other way, and the planet begins to lock a bunch of water vapor into ice. I'm thinking the planet begins to dry out, with less water evaporating and more water freezing. That will dry out the air, and bring water vapor out of saturation. And that means that water vapor isn't warming as much during a prolonged getting colder spell, as it usually does.

GreenMan wrote:Wow, you finally presented your argument. Thank you.Let's take a look at that, as see if we can tell what all the fuss is about.I'm thinking the coupling is the earth's atmosphere, since it is between outer space and the surface. What happens if you reduce the coupling's ability to conduct heat?

Since you don't understand a single thing you're talking about I'll tell you what would happen - if you interrupted so much as one watt of heat from the surface into outer space you'd have been cooked just as if you were on the surface of Venus you putz.

You know nothing about science and you shoot your mouth off continuously.

So 1 watt of heat would cook me? That must be a giant watt, lol.

To start with, what I said was that those watts of heat that the earth's surface is putting out [that warms the air and eventually make it to space] are being slowed down slightly, by air that is slightly warmer than it would be without those nasty greenhouse gases [that make it so warm here on earth]. Not sure if you understand that part of it. The slight warming of the air occurs due to absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases, which heat up when radiation of the right wavelength strike them. They are like tiny little heaters, spread out everywhere.

And those tiny little heaters raise the temperature of the air slightly, and that slows down the transfer of heat from the surface to outer space. The hotter something is in relation to something else is part of what determines the rate of heat transfer is why. If the air temp goes up a little, the surface temp isn't quite as much hotter than it was before, so conduction slows down just a bit.

Not much advanced science needed to understand that. So I'm wondering what your problem is, since you think you are such a wiz at things like science, and statistics and things like that. Do you have any skills that allow you to understand nature? I think we covered that, and you can follow blue prints, apparently, because you put a bunch of stuff together. Not sure that really helps. Were you able to mark up those blue prints as you were building that fancy stuff, to show what modifications were made as it was being built? Were you the one who figured out what modifications to make to fix whatever the problem was? Or did you just go report the problem to someone else that would tell you what to do? I'm thinking the latter is what you did, since you don't appear to have much common sense.

And I'm thinking that it just takes common sense to understand Global Warming. And maybe that's why even some of the smartest sounding people do not understand it. Common Sense and Knowledge are two very different things. A person with good common sense can use knowledge to figure out problems and solve them. A person without common sense can just run around bitching like a dog about problems. They can never offer solutions, because they don't have an sense.